Andy, On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 10:47:29AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > This has been done a few times. > Most recently April 22: > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i2rs/current/msg01474.html
I should respond there, but this was one of the messages that prompted my question about data (operational state) vs. ephemeral config. I don't believe we want to say "this is the module for monitoring the rib and now you can write to it". IMO, I think we want multiple data stores for configuration for adding routes to the rib. (I also thought the notification example was clear and didn't need further comment.) > I don't see how standard I2RS data could use local config data unless it > was also standardized. Basically, we want to make sure there is WG coordination on modules. If WG has a module and it makes sense for I2RS to use it/extend it, that's great when it makes sense. Similarly, if we find the need to create an I2RS module for work covered by another WG, we want to make sure we leave as much re-usable infra for them as we can. -- Jeff _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
